Regarding the tiers and media characters how did you decide where to put people?Spell levels. The way the spell levels and opposition change the game with level dictates the tiers into which the game progresses.
Codifying the tiers makes certain all classes get to play the same game.
So you don't wind up with a party like this
Surely demi-God status is what mythic is for? The ability to not die and/or high star points/templates.Not if you take the game past level 12. Do that and the casters are definitely getting Demi-God s+$+, so either give it to martials as well or forbid them from being player characters.
How do you define powers as being demigod or not?
Why on earth would you forbid someone who wanted to play a martial getting to play one? I don't understand the rationale...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only reasons to forbid someone playing a martial are as follows:
A- you refuse to allow Martials to perform appropriate to their tier.
B- you take the game past level 12 without nerfing magic and the opposition.
As to why I would do it? Because I don't want to see yet another player heartbroken when he realizes that his party mate solves all the problems by summoning a horde of angels and his badass BMX skills accomplish nothing of value.
My definition of 'demigod or not' is what the spells are doing.
Take a look at 7th level spells. That ain't 'human' level magic anymore.
So you save people from themselves. How very paternalistic of you.
Best character in our skull and shackles campaign - swashbuckler
Best character in our Warhammer Fantasy campaign - scout ranger
Best character in our northlands campaign - sword and shield fighter
That is in both terms of interest and ability to get stuff done.
I always thought that sketch would loose its potency if instead of being a guy on a bmx it was a 6'2" Arnold Swartznegger equivalent in a suit of adamantine full plate and a sword five long, moving through a series of small dark rooms.
I can't really see any grounds for separating 7th level magic from 6th except it is more powerful. It all breaks reality.
[edited text because I got ninja'd, then got ninja'd again lol. Kurt is one step ahead of me every time. He doesn't have the foresight spell up]
What is the average level of system mastery in each table?
I do not doubt that system mastery can expose issues in the ruleset, but I do wonder in how many of all tables where the game is played does it reach a point of becoming a problem?
Why would you assume they would make people heartbroken then?
I always thought that sketch would loose its potency if instead of being a guy on a bmx it was a 6'2" Arnold Swartznegger equivalent in a suit of adamantine full plate and a sword five long, moving through a series of small dark rooms.Nah, not really. How much good is The Terminator really going to accomplish next to Angel Summoner?
Fully equip him with all the man-sized [including far too heavy for a man to actually use] weapons of our era and he becomes a little more useful... when the mission's only objective is death and destruction.
Fully equipped [sans bombs/nuclear weapons] Model T-800 Terminator is only a level 8-9 concept [either the peak of Tier 4 or the bottom of Tier 3], nothing more.
If you want to take Terminator up to Tier 4 you need the T-3000 [Nanobot Terminator]
Depends on if your dm plays smart enough for anything reasonably important to take protection from X spells.
What is the average level of system mastery in each table?
I do not doubt that system mastery can expose issues in the ruleset, but I do wonder in how many of all tables where the game is played does it reach a point of becoming a problem?
I would argue, system mastery may expose weaknesses, but a complete lack of self restraint is required to exploit them. Exploiting weaknesses in the system to gain an advantage in power is neither laudable, impressive nor particularly sociable in what is supposed to be a game.
It's the same people who in 40k scour the boards for an uber Death Star list, use formations from twelve different books and then wonder why nobody wants to play with them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've had players feel crap because they realised they weren't pulling their weight compared to the 2/3 casters and full casters in the group. The others in the group weren't even optimised, they just picked cool stuff and accidentally eclipsed him.
At a certain point, the group decided the character would have to retire or we'd have to start a new campaign, because at that point it was like a sort of escort mission and the characters thought "okay, this is getting too extreme for that character to be thrown into adventures designed for accommodate characters as powerful as us".
We play for fun. We weren't being competitive. It was accidental. And yet, it still can happen.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
They aren't Fighter vs Wizard problems. Those are bad encounter design, poor GM and bad advice for new characters.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
*Snip*Negative and nope. I've NEVER seen a player "drag the game down" in the manner you claim. I've seen a player get caught not having a ranged weapon and picked one up as soon as they could. I have NEVER seen this as an actual problem.
It doesn't happen.
The only places something like this could even conceivably happen is in PFS and even then I highly doubt it. At that point even you don't tell someone to, "Pull their weight."
EVER.
You might suggest, "Hey, it might be a good idea to pick up an X."
That isn't the, "Pull your weight!"
Situation.
I'm 100% serious. My games the goal is fun. If your version of fun is having other players play the way you want them to play then my reaction is to boot you so fast and hard from the group you'd have my shoe print embedded in your buttocks as a permanent reminder of the time you tried to turn a friendly game of fantasy and freaking pretend into a competitive event.
Person: I sprained my ankle.
You: Sprained ankles don't exist, you're just walking wrong.That's the majority of your posts in this thread btw.
Best character in our skull and shackles campaign - swashbuckler
Best character in our Warhammer Fantasy campaign - scout ranger
Best character in our northlands campaign - sword and shield fighter
Can you tell me more about each of these characters? The more the better.
I'd like to expand them up to Tier 4 or 5 as a thought experiment.
Kyrt, look man, I think you're missing the point.
He said, "These were great characters in our game."
And you instantly want to tear it down by using the tired, old, hyperbolic tier system.
No I didn't. I've been discussing the Tiers of Play rather than the 'class tiers' of which you speak.
@ The Sword: I would still like to do that thought experiment, if you are willing to tell me more about those characters.
I don't understand the premise of your suggestion? Aren't your tiers based on levels? What makes them tier 3?
None were my character by the way I either played alongside them,or in the case of the shackles DM'd for them.
Astrid was chosen of the Valkyri, she fought with a long sword taken from the barrow of the last king of the seal-folk. She was the guardian of the Jarl's daughter and a key adviser to the Jarl (my character). Build wise she was fighter with specialising in shield and two weapon - high AC, large numbers of attacks with a fair few methods of adding combat manouvers. Medium hit points. Would generally tank and debuff key enemies.
Henry Avery was a swashbuckler, captain of the Wormwood who was incredibly mobile did large amounts of damage and debuffed enemies. He defeated several BBEG's single handed because of high AC/Dex and debuffs. Including a magus who was several levels higher than him.
Adelbert was a ranger specialising in bow in a typical above ground journey adventure (with several dungeons) His feats meant he could deal huge amounts of damage every round wherever he wanted while still being tough enough to take damage if he needed to. His sheer damage output was enough to drop many enemies before they got to act and he would pick targets where they were most needed. He could do 3 X the damage of the party wizard without criticals depending on the make up of the foe.
These guys were part of experienced gaming groups. Which contained casters and the player didn't hang their head in shame or embarrassment about not fighting. Incidentally the ranger could easily have been a fighter as the scout abilities and favoured enemy only came into effect in some combats.
If the best solution you have is to not play the class, that means there's something wrong with the class.You're right, I avoid the class. I love playing simple classes from time to time, but Fighter is dull, boring and offers nothing as a class. I WANT to play Fighters. The idea of a zero-magic class appeals to me. Why is it so sacrilege to ask for one that is actually useful in a world of...
The solution is for the people who dont want to play a mundane class- to not play a mundane class.
Just like if you dont like playing spellcasters- then dont.
35 classes. Find a few you like. Dont play the ones you dont like.
And it's just your opinion that fighters are not useful, since our Fighter, in RotRL was the most dangerous character in the party.
There is one class out of 35 that's pretty much 100% mundane.I count Fighter, Swashbuckler, Rogue, and Gunslinger.
Rogue can cast spells etc, especially in archetype, like Ninja.
Like I said, Guns are pretty much "magic" in PF.
In other words, you are looking for magical powers.Only a single thing on that list was magical (moving through shadows).
Shrugging off damage= Barbarian
gaining blindsense= Combat feats (also pretty magical or at least supernatural)
ignoring DR and hardness= Monk, etc
restoring allies hp= Ranger, inquisitor, Warpreist, Paladin. (and that's pretty magical, unless you're thinking a real good heal check)
running up walls= Monk, etc
granting morale bonuses to checks= Cavalier
just plain not dying= Fighter and barbarian archetypes
using tactics to buff your allies and debuff enemies= Cavalier, and various archetypes.
There ya go- all can be done is PF with martial classes.
Not all casters know what they are doing. Doably so for martials. The iconics are power gaming munchkins at many tables.
Most of the people bothering to read or post in a forum could stroll into any of these tables as any class and basically be a God.
Casters have more moving parts and will always be more powerful for those who know the game. The disparity is inevitable. The best that can ever be done is mitigation.
Making casters less fun is the worst way because all you do is alienate your devoted audience.
What could happen is more work to give martials more strategic options. But it has to make sense. I would probably cap martial levels at a certain point and have further growth be done through the mastery of artifacts or magical gear. Saitama is great and all but he translate poorly to a table top. He's either op or useless. Nothing in between. I don't think the wuxia approach works well mechanically without basically giving martials spells. In the end, they will just have to get spells and like it.
Because he takes weaker physical attributes and reduced hp, and protection in order to be able to use magic.Surely demi-God status is what mythic is for? The ability to not die and/or high star points/templates.Why do martials have to be mythic to do demi-god status stuff while caster don't need a single mythic rank to do god status stuff?
But those are weaknesses that don't actually weaken the caster. He doesn't actually need strong physical attributes and he can compensate for reduced hp with magic.
Here's a fun thought experiment: Take a Wizard and increase his HD to 1d10 (and make him full BAB). Is he remarkably stronger now? Can he do wonderful new things that he couldn't before? Or is he just better off casting like he always has, and ignoring the urge to use his newfound fighting prowess?
It isn't that it's Demi-God equivalent stuff it's that it's magic, which by definition breaks reality. Casters can also use magic to make fighters better. It's called teamwork. Haste, fly, magic weapon, keen edge, enlarge, are all much better cast on the fighter than on the wizard.
A fighter relies on the wizard, but the wizard doesn't really rely on the fighter. That's not teamwork; that's dependency.
In other words, you are looking for magical powers.Only a single thing on that list was magical (moving through shadows).Shrugging off damage= Barbarian
gaining blindsense= Combat feats (also pretty magical or at least supernatural)
ignoring DR and hardness= Monk, etc
restoring allies hp= Ranger, inquisitor, Warpreist, Paladin. (and that's pretty magical, unless you're thinking a real good heal check)
running up walls= Monk, etc
granting morale bonuses to checks= Cavalier
just plain not dying= Fighter and barbarian archetypes
using tactics to buff your allies and debuff enemies= Cavalier, and various archetypes.
There ya go- all can be done is PF with martial classes.
Combat versatility is about having access to lots of options. You will note that while some classes have (generally pretty weak) version of those, they are limited in options and therefore do not have the combat versatility I spoke of.
I can assure GMs that have never seen the disparity in action that is very real and depends largely on if you as a GM play enemy monsters to their intelligence. If high level monsters make full use of their SLAs and SU abilities, you may find your martial characters will be either very frustrated or very reliant on the casters help. Some players will realize how dependent their ability to function at all is on casters and be disappointed as is the case with the Monk I DM'd. Of course it is entirely possible to stay ignorant of it like the Samurai in my campaign was. He kind of caught on about Combat Maneuvers becoming much less useful at high levels, but beyond that did not realize how reliant he was on buffs to function.
For those interested I've posted them before but here's the two stories:
Still the end of the campaign was happy(?) for him as with help from the party Sorcerer, they succeeded in betraying the party and retrieving a divine artifact for their new employer, despite the BBEG and the rest of the party (temporarily) joining forces to prevent their escape.
Unlike the Monk from my other example, the Samurai never realized that his contribution was solely his ability to splatter an enemy and that only really kicked in when he could get in a full attack which was very rare. Meanwhile, the Cleric, Wizard and Ranger (Archer based) had no such problems. The Archer didn't deal as much damage as the Samurai did when full attacking, but he did it more frequently and the damage output was still high, while the casters mostly focused on SoS/Buffs. I should note his CHA was low and he didn't do much outside of combat, though the player did not seem very interested in that. The Cleric meanwhile helped to promote a minor goddess and the Wizard started his own sellsword organization. The Ranger was mostly gathering information about the West (where he was originally from) as it has been being significantly restructured after a demonic incursion 20 years prior to the campaign, with Hextor (I use 3.5 Gods) gaining a significant foothold there.
I don't think the wuxia approach works well mechanically without basically giving martials spells.Why?
Because to the martial haters anything that a level 6 or lower person could not do (ie. what someone in real life could not do) is magic. Even if it isn't.
@ Anzyr: I am interested your thoughts on the Valkyrie progression I posted a bit upthread.
Very nicely done. That's the kind of progression that would actually match the way PF progresses. At level 1, you are keeping the Farmers safe from Goblins. At level 20, you are punching literal lords of the abyss in the face, because lets be honest someone has to. I would let the Valkyrie gain an ability to do a boosted non-magic Breath of Life for someone in Tier 4, or themselves automatically if they have uses left. Then as planned get it at-will at 5th tier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If the best solution you have is to not play the class, that means there's something wrong with the class.You're right, I avoid the class. I love playing simple classes from time to time, but Fighter is dull, boring and offers nothing as a class. I WANT to play Fighters. The idea of a zero-magic class appeals to me. Why is it so sacrilege to ask for one that is actually useful in a world of...
The solution is for the people who dont want to play a mundane class- to not play a mundane class.
Just like if you dont like playing spellcasters- then dont.
35 classes. Find a few you like. Dont play the ones you dont like.
And it's just your opinion that fighters are not useful, since our Fighter, in RotRL was the most dangerous character in the party.
DrDeth, why am I not allowed to change the Fighter class to better suit my needs?
And if I am allowed, why are you spending so much time and energy telling me I can't/shouldn't?
No one here is on the dev team, no one here can tell the dev team what to change. So basically, all you're doing is spending time and energy telling people that the house rules they want to try are wrong. No one is saying that YOU are required to adopt these changes.
So, if these changes have zero effect on you... why do you care?
@claymade
The spells Control Weather (lvl 7) and Control Winds (lvl 5) are examples of mass destruction spells.
At 12th level, the caster of Control Winds can create a Hurricane with a 480' radius that lasts for 2 hours. This can travel in any direction the caster chooses. At 15th level, it's tornados in a 600' radius that lasts for 2.5 hours.
At 13th level, the caster of Control Weather can cause a seasonally appropriate catastrophe to occur for up two two days in a 2 mile radius circle.
Of course, we're ignoring the ramifications of spells like Lightning Bolt, Cloudkill, Blasphemy or Summoning a Fire Elemental on the local area.
Edit: Epidemic (clc 6, wiz 7) and Cursed Earth (clc/wiz 9) are two more spells designed to wreak havoc on a community.
I think people might actually be resistant to letting "mundane" characters do things that are improbable/unrealistic/difficult to explain in a way that they're not resistant to letting "people with magic" do similarly impactful things, just because you can handwave all sorts of issues with "it's magic".
I mean, it's not good to do this, but I think people do sometimes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP... not long ago I restricted full-casters from my game, allowing only martials and partial casters and reserving Clerics, Wizards, etc. for as key NPC's and villains. Its worked spectacularly well and I've never looked back.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Magicians are godly because GMs don't "prey upon" their weaknesses and flaws, because that would be terrible, or at least seem like picking on them. The combat system itself limits fighters, since that is what it is designed for. Without magic providing wildness and weirdness the game would lose a lot of interest, but to have magic be what we want it to be, it has to be so diverse that you cannot reasonably balance or limit it. Sometimes it enhances, sometimes it detracts, and it is mostly an issue when someone is being a jerk. This happens with martials too, but it is easier for the system to spot and deal with martial abuses.
Since experiences and play balance vary by table, and there are players and posters who LIVE for the imbalances, all these threads end up venting and baiting. Trollhavens.
This one has been pretty civil, but we have gone 648 posts with no real agreements, because the issue is mostly personal tastes and a lot of emotional baggage. Some people would love to play limited magic sometimes or all the time, and some people would just hate it. Since Pathfinder does tend to attract people who are highly invested in rules uniformity, this can be an issue.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This one has been pretty civil, but we have gone 648 posts with no real agreements, because the issue is mostly personal tastes and a lot of emotional baggage. Some people would love to play limited magic sometimes or all the time, and some people would just hate it. Since Pathfinder does tend to attract people who are highly invested in rules uniformity, this can be an issue.
The real issue is that there are people who want to play E6, but for some reason want to write down Level 20 Fighter. They say they want to be Aragorn, but they don't want to cap the campaign at level 6. It's very bizarre because they could play Aragorn, have (somewhat) limited magic, and not have anything (overtly) superhuman if they would just stick to the first five levels of the game. The solution to literally all of their issues is to just limit their leveling, but for some reason are compelled to want a level 10+ Aragorn and in doing so make level 10+ incorrectly limited by a what is really a level 5-6 character.